Military surveillance for political repression I

A Thai Enquirer Facebook post refers to a recent parliamentary committee meeting getting the military to admit that it has been “engaging in strategic communication to monitor and respond to public criticism but denied involvement in cyberattacks or character assassination—despite documents indicating both ‘white’ (public relations) and ‘black’ (covert influence) operations.” The comments on those “exploiting” the monarchy – not the military itself?? – are of interest. The effort spent on “protecting” the monarchy is spectacular. We reproduce in full:

The Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC) has admitted to monitoring and profiling individuals and groups for national security purposes but denied using disinformation or launching cyberattacks as part of its information operations (IO).

Leaked documents submitted to the House Committee on National Security identify high-profile figures—including former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Bhumjaithai leader Anutin Charnvirakul, and Kla Tham Party de facto leader Thammanat Prompao—as allegedly exploiting the monarchy for personal benefit.

The documents also list civil society groups, opposition parties, and pro-democracy figures such as former Move Forward Party leader Pita Limjaroenrat and Progressive Movement’s Pannika Wanich as “high-value targets” for information operations. ISOC further categorized the People’s Party and pro-democracy movements as part of an anti-monarchist network.

Committee chair Rangsiman Rome said ISOC confirmed the documents’ authenticity but claimed the classifications were based on general internet data and were unintentional. He argued that repeated errors of this nature suggest deliberate political targeting and called for accountability.

ISOC confirmed the existence of a Special Security Task Force, led by Gen. Thammanoon Withee, tasked with implementing the “Information-Related Capabilities Plan” to monitor so-called High-Value Targets (HVTs) based on evolving threat assessments. These individuals are tracked by the military’s cyber unit. However, Army spokesperson Maj Gen Winthai Suwaree said the task force is limited to public relations and denied any involvement in defamation or connections to social media accounts targeting pro-democracy groups, including “Je Jook Khlong Sam,” which has disseminated disinformation. [PPT: It is well known and well documented that the military is widely involved in such activities.]

Rangsiman and People’s Party MP Chayaphon Satondee both raised concerns over selective enforcement. Chayaphon cited cases in Sakon Nakhon where military intelligence unmasked anonymous social media users critical of the army and initiated legal proceedings, questioning why similar action isn’t taken against pro-military accounts spreading falsehoods.

He added that complaints and evidence will be submitted to investigate which agencies collected the data, who authorized it, and who supported the IO operations that ISOC claimed were legitimate. The military acknowledged that some content in the leaked documents came from media reports and social media accounts but insisted it did not engage in formal procurements or contracts.

[Update] Army spokesperson Maj Gen Winthai Suwaree stated that the army is not conducting Information Operations (IO) to carry out disinformation operations or cyberattacks, although the concept is used globally as a communication tool in military operations and national defense.

In Thailand, Maj Gen Winthai said, the army uses public relations to correct misconceptions and build understanding. He emphasized that the army’s actions are transparent and aimed at raising awareness to protect its reputation [PPT: he’s fabricating this]. The army does not see misunderstandings as negative but as an opportunity to clarify. He added that there is no aggressive approach, and the efforts should be seen as public relations rather than IO.

He also noted that the army primarily uses online channels to communicate with the public. However, if misinformation or inappropriate content is found, the army can use laws such as the Computer Crime Act and defamation laws to address it. The army targets individuals with large followings, such as politicians or academics, who influence public opinion. Maj Gen Winthai reassured that the military’s monitoring is not a cause for concern, as the focus remains on facts.

Maj Gen Winthai said misunderstandings should be addressed openly and honestly. He acknowledged that some individuals with negative views of the military have been targeted for monitoring, but the army simply seeks to present an alternative narrative. He emphasized that the army does not respond with anger and openly engages with online influencers.

Regarding claims that online discrediting and disinformation attacks against politicians and activists are linked to the military or security agencies, Maj Gen Winthai denied these accusations, stating that legal action can be taken to verify the facts if necessary.

Key points from the meeting:

– Military Operations and Cyberattacks: Army spokesperson Maj Gen Winthai stated that Gen Thammanoon’s role as Deputy Director of the Joint Operations Center (JOC), which is responsible for cyber operations, was standard—even though he retired in 2021. The JOC is a collaborative unit involving multiple agencies.

– Denial of Cyberattacks by the Military: The Army, Navy, and Air Force all denied conducting information operations (IO) intended to attack individuals. They claimed their efforts were limited to public relations activities aimed at correcting misinformation about the military or national institutions.

– Military Influence on Social Media: Documents presented by MP Chayaphon showed that the military had promoted social media pages that attacked opposition groups and shared content favorable to the military. Pannika questioned whether this was part of the military’s public relations strategy. Maj Gen Winthai denied any connection to the sharing of personal data with these pages.

– Security Documents and Political Monitoring: Gen Thammanoon explained that an ISOC document listing figures such as Thaksin, Anutin, and Thammanat as “exploiting the institution” was a mistake. He said it was meant to be a general political overview based on open-source information. MP Chayaphon also questioned the document’s reference to the People’s Party. Gen Thammanoon acknowledged the inclusion was an error but confirmed the document originated from ISOC.